Chitrangda gets custody of her son Zorawar; Jyoti Randhawa gets visitation rights; two lawyer brothers represented their cases
Jyothi Prabhakar (BOMBAY TIMES; April 19, 2014)

Actress Chitrangda Singh and golfer Jyoti Randhawa have always denied there was an issue in their marriage, talk of which has been around for years. They did the same last May, when we broke the story of them filing for divorce by mutual consent at the Gurgaon Family Court, and ever since, they have been denying the divorce rumours even more strongly.

 But now, it turns out that just as we had mentioned in our story last May, Randhawa and Chitrangda, who had been married for 12 years, and have a son, Zorawar, filed for divorce by mutual consent in May 2013 — the case was heard by district judge Baljit Singh, who advised that the duo sort out their differences and fixed a hearing for November 11, 2013. And on that date, as it happens with cases of divorce by mutual consent, since a period of six months had elapsed post the filing for divorce, certain issues were ironed out, and a divorce granted.

 Osama Suhail, the lawyer who represented Chitrangda Singh, told us, “While I have already mentioned that I can neither deny nor confirm the divorce, it is true that I represented Chitrangda Singh in her divorce case, and Mr Randhawa’s lawyer was Mr Samama. They applied for divorce in May last year. Six months later, as it happens with such cases, they again appeared before the judge and a divorce was granted.”

 When asked about the settlement, he added, “It was more of an internal thing, and client confidentiality is a term I take seriously, and so, I cannot divulge further details.” On being asked whether it was an out-of-court settlement, he replied, “Yes, it was an out-of-court settlement. There is no mention of any financial arrangement in the court papers at all. But yes, in November, certain issues were settled. Visitation rights, for one — it was decided that their son, Zorawar, will remain with the mother, with the father getting visitation rights.” Suhail also mentioned that the divorce record was in the public domain.